Order Date: 29 August 2022

Facts-

• The Appellant, Essar Bulk Terminal Limited, are providing various taxable services and also availing the Cenvat credit on inputs, input Services and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
• The Appellant submitted that the entire expense for dredging and the Service tax thereon has been borne by the appellant in terms of the permission. 
• Further, it is debarred by Gujarat Maritime Board (‘GMB’) from recovering any charges for usage of channels from others and the same forms a part of the output services, being rendered to ESTL.
• The lower authorities have denied the Cenvat credit in respect of dredging service to the appellant on the ground that the land of jetty is owned by GMB, the channel developed by the appellant is not for their exclusive use by the appellant.

Issue-

• Whether the dredging services received by the appellant for dredging the navigation channel leading to its jetty on which Cenvat credit has been availed falls under the purview of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?

Order-

• The Tribunal observed that this Tribunal in the appellant’s own case has held that dredging service received by the appellant for construction of navigation channel is an input service and the credit is allowed.
• Further, it was observed that the entire fact and the legal position of the present case is exactly the same as was in the above cited decision of this tribunal. The only difference is, in the present case the show cause notice is periodical whereas, the allegation and contents of the show cause notice are common. In this position, it is not necessary to again repeat discussion and finding. The issue is squarely covered in the appellant’s own case in the above cited judgments of this tribunal. Following the same, there is no merit in the impugned orders.
• As regards submission of the appellant that the cost of service was borne by the appellant only hence credit is available to them, The Tribunal held that it is undisputed fact that the entire cost charged by the service provider to the appellant only and the same was expenditure exclusively of the appellant. For this reason also as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Coca Cola case, the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit on input service, dredging service.
• Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief.